The Difference Between Weather and Climate Change

The Neil deGrasse Tyson climate - denier take-down we’ve been waiting for is finally here

Login to rate this video.

You can place this video on your website by inserting the (X)HTML code below:

Options:
pixels
pixels
Embed code:
<iframe src="https://www.snotr.com/embed/13820" width="400" height="330" frameborder="0"></iframe>

You can email this video to your friends by entering their addresses below:

Your information:
Recipients:

add Add another recipient

Human verification:

People who liked this video also liked

Cool interventions that are on another level
Travis Pastrana Raises the Bar
Gripen - Always combat ready
Travis Pastrana Raises the Bar
Travis Pastrana Raises the Bar
Travis Pastrana Raises the Bar

Comments

24 comments posted so far. Login to add a comment.

Expand all comments

Picture of Ravez33 achievements

+7 1. Ravez commented 5 years ago

I want to meet him in person, and ask him to talk in concession about anything he wants for 24 hours. Then I will have a beer with him. And he'll say yes.
Picture of ughlah41 achievements

+7 2. ughlah commented 5 years ago

finally an explanation even a dumbass will understand.
Picture of mightymaxx28 achievements

+6 3. mightymaxx commented 5 years ago

#2 I wouldn't count on it. Although this is about the clearest and most apt analogy I've seen yet. Well done, and the show Cosmos is simply awesome. Neil Tyson is a national treasure.
Picture of Dmitry33 achievements
Comment rated too low. Show this comment

-9 4. Dmitry commented 5 years ago

Greenhouse farmers use CO2 to boost plant growth (CO2 is what plants breath) CO2 is a greenhouse gas but it does not create the greenhouse effect, the greenhouse itself produces the greenhouse effect, like your car on a sunny day, summer or winter is always much warmer then the outside. CO2 is a clear gas, it does not and cannot trap infrared light or any light. Whoever came up with this stupid theory, was just making a joke, trying to see if anyone would take it seriously, unfortunately most people are more stupid than this stupid joke.
Picture of ughlah41 achievements

+2 5. ughlah commented 5 years ago

dmitry, can you explain to me what clear means?
why can you look through a clear diamond, but cannot look through a piece of coal, when both are entirely made out of carbon.
and why is the greenhouse effect so strong in a building made entirely out of clear glass?

if there is no god, but you follow all his rules, what bad would it do, if he still existed and you came into paradise?
if there is no climate change, but you stopped destroying nature, what bad would it do, if there still was a climate change?
Picture of huldu34 achievements

+4 6. huldu commented 5 years ago

Warm water makes for better swimming so that's nice.
Picture of madmap32 achievements

+3 7. madmap commented 5 years ago

it's sad that this sill has to be explained...
Picture of Granko25 achievements

+1 8. Granko commented 5 years ago

I agree with everything he said expcept his last reasoning and conclusion ;)
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements

0 9. sux2bu commented 5 years ago

The left is a group of lemmings who can easily be convinced of most anything given enough PR.
It is like a religion to them.

Unfortunately the asshats are in charge at the moment.

The claim that “97% of all Climate Scientists believe that human activity is the cause of Global Warming” that all lefties repeat ad nauseum is actually 4% of all scientists that believe that human activity could possibly cause global warming.
97% of the 4% are convinced that human activity is the cause.
In other words, just over 3% of all climate scientists believe in this bullshit and the lemmings believe it 100%.

Here is a much more intelligent discussion of what we know about "climate change" and our options.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB5XQq7qkfc
Picture of fjwjr62 achievements

0 10. fjwjr commented 5 years ago

Sorry, that did nothing to clear up that little misconception because he didn't answer the biggest question; When does weather become climate? This is a big question because global warming alarmists use weather to support their theory and then tell global warming 'deniers' (or realists) that anything they bring up is really weather, not climate and therefore invalid.

How many times do you hear global warming alarmists crank up the retoric after one snowstorm or one tornado or one hurricane?
Picture of Sizzlik64 achievements

+3 11. Sizzlik (admin) commented 5 years ago

#10 ..well he said when weather becomes climate. Weather is day by day..climate is the average weather over a long time =)
Picture of Natan_el_Tigre52 achievements

-1 12. Natan_el_Tigre commented 5 years ago

#5 Right, kind of like this guy's matrix of moral obligation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
Picture of snotraddict44 achievements

+5 13. snotraddict commented 5 years ago

#5 The harm? The problem with the Global Warming religion is it's become political with the zealots in charge, and when it's political it's dangerous to the individual and their freedom to live unencumbered by stupid policies and regulations that do nothing. Many countries have tried to legislate GW'ing policies and many have backed off because in general it destroys economies because the "green" technologies are much more expensive than the current tried and true methods.

Again, because it's political, in most cases it's not about what the best technologies are, it's about who bought off the politicians to mandate their product often times with much less performance/results than promised and you're left with a large portion of the economy being sucked up by this voodoo fix than is reasonable.

Because of all of the politics, I don't know if GM is real or not, I'm a fan and believe harnessing the sun's energy is brilliant and we probably will someday, I just don't like all of the policies that today come with it, from what light bulbs I can purchase, what home I can live in, what car I can drive. There are people in this world that have dreamed of controlling populations and their lifestyles for centuries and it seems to me this GW'ing is a massive convenient way to control people. What I really hate is these same politicians telling me how to live (small cramped apartments owned by who-- their buddies, taking cramped, slow inconvenient mass transit) while they shuttle around in limos and airplanes and live in large energy hogging homes.

It's politics, not science.
Picture of fjwjr62 achievements

+2 14. fjwjr commented 5 years ago

#11 Then why do global warming alarmist always use a single weather event as 'proof' of their theory?
Picture of ughlah41 achievements

-1 15. ughlah commented 5 years ago

funny coincidence: all of the above, who have claimed there is either no climate change or it is not caused by humans or CO2 are exactly those I have downvoted in the past for their comments on videos not related to this topic at all.

So, what we have here is one media puppet (me) and a couple socially adept and all knowing beings who have found wisdom beyond common (as in media influenced) believes.

Question is where you gather your data and how you undergo the scientific process. the worst kind of data is found on the internet. you find quite a few prrofs for creationists theories and a whole lot of stuff about 23, illuminati, alien abductions, some mastermind organization or hidden agendas everywhere.

Have you went through the trouble to grab a book (at least try to find a real scientific article, not a commentary) on the topic or actually any topic on the internet. There is quite easy explanations to the effect that has the most impact.

97% of 4%. what is that supposed to mean? who are the 97, who are the 4?
a video posted about how someone has an interest on less energy consumption? (who is that?, the most powerful lobbies in germany are energy and car production, you think they want less income?)
a video about how some moron who got a webcam and is talking about what could do harm? There is no harm at all in Co2 saving.

but there you have it. I tired to argue on the internet. Damn. My bad.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements

+2 16. sux2bu commented 5 years ago

#15 You might find this interesting.Sorry it does not support your "research" on the matter,
but over 31,000 scientists signed this petition arguing against the theory of anthropogenic climate change. When you get away from scientists who rely on government grants to keep working you will
find hundreds of scientists who strongly disagree with the alarmists theories.
Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."


http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
Picture of ughlah41 achievements

-2 17. ughlah commented 5 years ago

Even I have a PHD, but not even close to the field in question. That in itself is no qualification to talk about anything other than your specific field you wrote your PHD about.

From what I have read about the topic and what I saw in hard data there is in fact a change in climate in the last decades. You can argue about the reasons for that, but rejecting the warming in the oceans and the reduction of thickness of the ice is just ignoring a pretty broad amount of tests with the same results. You can however argue that this won't have any effect on the weather, but El Nino suggests (not proves) that there seems to be a correlation between water temperature and Weather.

We know that in small spaces CO2 can work as a greenhouse and we witness this effect in a lot of industrial cities. Shenzen, China, is by far the best example.

Sure some scientists are funded by the government, but I highly doubt that "the government" is some evil organization that makes scientists say something they believe in. A) because all the scientists wouldn't care at all and still say out loud what they thought and B) "governments" consists of thousands of people who could keep such a secret anyway.

The US is the state with the most people who favor your side of the story in comparison to any other state on the planet. With a petition on the internet you have to be pretty careful. Everybody can sign it, with any name and any title.

From what I have read I strongly favor the CO2 theory, but a theory is only right till it's proven to be wrong, so I will keep reading about argument that think they can disprove it. But some internet kids saying that a clear glass cannot influence sunbeams is arguing on a childish level.
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements

+1 18. sux2bu commented 5 years ago

As you admit your Ph.d does not relate to the discussion you yet seem to trivialize
the Ph.D's of the signers of the Petition. I guess you did not click on the
link provided to peruse the info there. All the scientists were vetted to insure their
fields of study were related to the subject of the petition.

http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
Picture of ughlah41 achievements

-2 19. ughlah commented 5 years ago

I pick one name from the list "Alan Dean Shauers" and he is President of an Engineering Company building pipelines.

I pick a second name: Kevin M. Bohacs is a sedimentologist and stratigrapher with ExxonMobil in Houston.

I see a pattern as the third name on the list is Michael W. Brinkmeyer, who is General Manager of Keystone Midstream Services, LLC which is a joint venture between Stonehenge, Rex Energy and Sumitomo Corporation.

You argument was that state funding would influence scientists to neglect CO2 induced global warming? Looks the other way around to me from the first 3 names I checked.
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements

0 20. sux2bu commented 5 years ago

Those are private companies,not the Government.
And the list of scientists shows there is no consensus
that man-made global warming exists or is even a danger
to our earth. Warming in some areas would even be welcome in parts of the world
where farming is impossible because of cold climes.
And don't ignore the Medieval Warm Period that occurred way
before man had ANY influence on the climate.
My trees and plants need all the co2 they can get. :D
Picture of bendb20 achievements

0 21. bendb commented 5 years ago

#9 This video reminds me of the defence for religion. It includes only vague information with no actual evidence against global warming.

The big questions is, what are the negatives of clean energy, none. What are the negatives of fossil fuel use, potential global catastrophe. I know which I would choose.
Picture of ughlah41 achievements

+1 22. ughlah commented 5 years ago

the whole video is not vague at all. this is just an excerpt of a few minutes explaining just one thing : weather and climate, not how they change over time and why.

it's a rather good documentation.
Picture of SpanneurRouge10 achievements

+2 23. SpanneurRouge commented 5 years ago

The climate is ALWAYS changing. The strongest force in climate is not CO2, it is the Sun.

The Man Made Climate Change Swindle is a Swindle...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements

0 24. sux2bu commented 5 years ago

#23 Thanks ,that was well worth watching and pretty much re-confirms everything I had
already thought and known about the "theory" of man-made climate change.
That buffoon Al Gore made millions for himself selling that snake-oil movie,
called "An Inconveniant Truth" ,which is full of mis-truths,
and then sold his own television channel to Al Jazeera, which is owned by
Qatar, an oil rich country that is supposedly harming the earth by producing
all that oil!